Same Sex Marriages and Sexual Orientation

[Cow Poke]

And you completely ignored the part where your own moral position is logically inconsistent.

I rest my case...

Ya know, when somebody actually "rests their case", it means they're done talking.

[Sparko]

And you completely ignored the part where your own moral position is logically inconsistent.

I rest my case...

It doesn't matter. If morals are relative, then my morals are my morals for whatever reason I decide, whether the reason is consistent or not. You have no basis to tell me I am wrong, just your opinion. You seem to want it both ways. But if morals are indeed just relative to the person then so are the reasons for that moral value. I can decide homosexuality is evil because God says so and that if you think it is good then you are an evil bigot who promotes homosexuality because you hate gays and you smell like rotten eggs on tuesdays and that is just as valid a reason for my moral opinion as yours.

[carpedm9587]

Ya know, when somebody actually "rests their case", it means they're done talking.

One interpretation is "I've finished presenting my case."

Another is "I believe I've provided adequate information to substantiate my case."

And another is "You just made my case for me."

Choose the one you prefer

(psstt.. I meant the latter)

[carpedm9587]

It doesn't matter. If morals are relative, then my morals are my morals for whatever reason I decide, whether the reason is consistent or not. You have no basis to tell me I am wrong, just your opinion. You seem to want it both ways. But if morals are indeed just relative to the person then so are the reasons for that moral value. I can decide homosexuality is evil because God says so and that if you think it is good then you are an evil bigot who promotes homosexuality because you hate gays and you smell like rotten eggs on tuesdays and that is just as valid a reason for my moral opinion as yours.

Actually....the argument was from the perspective of your own moral precepts - pointing out their inconsistency. It does not require any argument from my own moral framework.

In the Sparko/Christian framework - morality based on genetics is wrong if based on race. It is OK if based on sex.

Inconsistency....

[Tassman]

It doesn't matter. If morals are relative, then my morals are my morals for whatever reason I decide, whether the reason is consistent or not. You have no basis to tell me I am wrong, just your opinion. You seem to want it both ways. But if morals are indeed just relative to the person then so are the reasons for that moral value. I can decide homosexuality is evil because God says so and that if you think it is good then you are an evil bigot who promotes homosexuality because you hate gays and you smell like rotten eggs on tuesdays and that is just as valid a reason for my moral opinion as yours.

Not so. Morals are universal ethical principles commonly held by most people, groups, cultures, and nations.

[seer]

Technique #1

Since we are in a subjective world, no one's prioritization is objectively more true than anyone else's. But, of course, we know that, because we're in a (wait for it...) subjective worldview. No one has disagreed with this from the outset. Because...(wait for it)...subjective morality is not objective.

You're not saying anything, Seer, except repeating the definition of the terms...

Nonsense Carp, if I'm not saying anything then why do you push back when I compare something like gay rights to a color preference? Why do you call it a technique, when in your relative world it is a fact?

[Roy]

Well I don't know about all atheists but I never had a problem taking your nonsensical moral views apart. Of course that was low hanging fruit, after all your ethical system justifies infanticide...

As does seer's.

[Sparko]

Actually....the argument was from the perspective of your own moral precepts - pointing out their inconsistency. It does not require any argument from my own moral framework.

In the Sparko/Christian framework - morality based on genetics is wrong if based on race. It is OK if based on sex.

Inconsistency....

Again who cares?

If morals are based on objective truths then they can't be relative. If they are relative, then you arguing using "genetics" as if that actually should mean something is hypocritical.

If it is objectively wrong for someone to discriminate against someone because of genetics, then your belief that morals are relative values is incorrect. If your belief is correct, then you can't argue that discrimination because of genetics is wrong for anyone else but yourself. You can't even argue that it is wrong because most people today believe it to be wrong because you already said that morality doesn't depend on numbers.

Basically if you truly believe that morals are just relative values we each hold, then you have no basis to argue that something is wrong for anyone but yourself. For example: murder can't ACTUALLY be wrong. It can only be wrong to you and anyone else who believes it to be. Any arguments of WHY murder is wrong would just be rationalizing your own values. The minute you try to argue that murder is wrong because of some objective truth, you are admitting that morals are not relative. The same with bigotry. If it is truly wrong for anyone to discriminate because of race or gender then morals are not relative.

[Sparko]

Not so. Morals are universal ethical principles commonly held by most people, groups, cultures, and nations.

He already told me that morals are not just commonly held beliefs. That numbers don't matter. To him, morals are just personal values.

If you disagree take it up with Carp, not me.

[One Bad Pig]

No - I never used or thought "objective" in any of my posts.



I was arguing, and AM arguing, from my moral framework. I was also pointing out the logical inconsistency of rejecting as bigotry morality based on genetics when it is about race, but tolerating it when it is based on sex. Again...

Person with Gene X is acting immorally if they marry and are intimate with person with Gene Y
Person with Gene X is acting morally if they marry and are intimate with person with Gene X

If I tell you that Gene X is "black" and "Gene Y is "white" - you would look at me and say "why on earth does THAT impact morality? It's just genes! You're being a bigot.

Person with Gene X is acting morally if they marry and are intimate with person with Gene Y
Person with Gene X is acting immorally if they marry and are intimate with person with Gene X

If I tell you that Gene X is "male" and "Gene Y is "female" - you would look at me and say of COURSE that impacts morality.

But both positions are based on nothing more than the genetic code of the two people involved. My argument is about the inconsistency of your own position. The only response you can offer is "that's what the bible tells us." So, basically, your bible is telling you to be inconsistent, and you're OK with that because it's the "will of god."

See the problem...?



Actually - I am arguing that your own position is inconsistent. If the first is bigotry, so is the second. If the second is not bigotry, neither is the first.

Congratulations, you just made a moral argument for pedophilia. To say otherwise would be inconsistent.

[seer]

Congratulations, you just made a moral argument for pedophilia. To say otherwise would be inconsistent.

And for human to animal sex...

[Sparko]

And for human to animal sex...

If morals are relative to each person, then saying it is moral or immoral for people who like chocolate to have sex is just as valid as any other reason. It only matters to each person. That is what Carp doesn't seem to get. He tries so hard to argue that to discriminate based on genetics is bigotry. Yet if that is an objectively true statement, then morals are not relative at all.


He is arguing that it is wrong for anyone to discriminate because of genetics.

If morals are relative then it is only wrong for him. If he wants to convince everyone that it is actually wrong on some intrinsic level, then morals are not relative.

[seer]

If morals are relative to each person, then saying it is moral or immoral for people who like chocolate to have sex is just as valid as any other reason. It only matters to each person. That is what Carp doesn't seem to get. He tries so hard to argue that to discriminate based on genetics is bigotry. Yet if that is an objectively true statement, then morals are not relative at all.


He is arguing that it is wrong for anyone to discriminate because of genetics.

If morals are relative then it is only wrong for him. If he wants to convince everyone that it is actually wrong on some intrinsic level, then morals are not relative.

And the fact that it is not inconsistent for God to design sex for a specific purpose, and not another.

[Charles]

And the fact that it is not inconsistent for God to design sex for a specific purpose, and not another.

Could he have designed it differently and would you approve of homosexuals if God had designed things differently?

[carpedm9587]

Nonsense Carp, if I'm not saying anything then why do you push back when I compare something like gay rights to a color preference?

I am merely pointing out the game you play, so others reading this will recognize that there is no actual content to your posts.

Why do you call it a technique, when in your relative world it is a fact?

It is a fact that values are relative. It is also a fact that neither you nor I have ever encountered anyone who values as you describe. So your posts are the equivalent of the physicist, just learning that speed is relative, pointing out that this means that the turtle can therefore theoretically travel faster than a Boeing 747, as a way of attempting to ridicule relativity. In theory...yes. In reality...no. And the attempt to diminish/disparage the theory fails to actually show the theory false.

Likewise...morality is relative. Your attempt to diminish/ridicule it actually doesn't show it to be wrong. It just attempts to ridicule.